Introduction of the Res Judicata under Section 11 C.P.C, 1908: – The question has already been determined, according to the Res Judicata concept. It signifies that no court has the authority to hear any new suit or issue that has already been resolved in a previous suit between the same parties.
Moreover, the court can not hear claims and matters involving the same parties who are litigating under the same title and subject matter that has already been judged and determined by a competent court. Whenever a court decides that an issue or matter has already been decided by the competent court and so there is no appeal pending before any court, the court has the authority to dismiss the case by issuing a Res Judicata decree.
This idea is founded on the assumption that if a case has already been adjudicated by a competent court, no one has the right to reopen it in a subsequent challenge. It also establishes the judgments’ conclusiveness as to the issues decided in any subsequent suit between the same parties. When matters directly and significantly implicated between the same parties in the previous and current suit are the same, the court will apply the Res Judicata doctrine.
For example, if only a portion of the property was engaged in the previous litigation, but the entire property of the parties is involved in the current or future suit, the court will issue a Res Judicata decree.
Origin of the doctrine of Res Judicata
The notion of Rest Judicata is one of the world’s oldest doctrines. The res judicata notion is “as old as the law itself.”
- The Latin motto for the Res Judicata doctrine is “Res judicata pro veritate accipitur” (A matter adjudicated is received as the truth). Res Judicata is a legal notion that has its roots in a number of historical judicial systems. Starting with problem preemption in Germanic estoppel and ending with the Roman res judicata, which instigated the truth by examining the judging effect
- The movement of res judicata from issue preclusion to claim preclusion is altered in the Roman approach.
Courts were unorganized and immature in the early days of England since there was no idea of res judicata. However, in England, the idea of Res Judicata has emerged. In the beginning, English courts relied on foreign parallels, but they later amended and established their own Res Judicata doctrine.
maxim related to res judicata
Three Roman maxims gave rise to the idea of Res Judicata:
The Scope and Applicability of Res Judicata
The res judicata doctrine is a fundamental concept based on the separation of public and private interests. All judicial processes must come to a halt, according to the law. As a result, it includes, among other things, civil cases, writ petitions, arbitration proceedings, execution procedures, tax matters, industry adjudication, interim orders, administrative orders, and criminal orders. As a result, Sec. 11 of the C.P.C., which outlines the res judicata principle, is comprehensive.
Ingredients of Res-Judicata
The following are the ingredients of Res-Judicata or the Rule of Conclusiveness:
- Same Parties in Subsequent Suits- in order to prove Res-Judicata, the parties in a subsequent suit should be the same or between the same parties under whom they had a claim.
- The Suit’s Title Must Be the Same- Another crucial factor is that the opposing parties’ titles must be the same in order to establish the rule of Res-Judicata.
- The Court has resolved the case on the merits and must be competent to try the case—the courts must hear all parties on the merits and render a decision on the merits.
- d) The Subject-Matter of the Dispute Must Be the Same- In order to invoke this section-11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the subject matter of the Dispute Must Be the Same in Previous and Subsequent Suits.
Res-Judicata and the Rule of Law are two concepts that are often used interchangeably. The Res-Judicata Principle is a larger principle with a universal application. This issue was demonstrated in the landmark Supreme Court of India decision Daryao v. U.O.I, AIR 1961, wherein the Appellants filed an Art. 226 writ suit at Allahabad High Court and were rejected. Subsequently, the Petitioners file substantive cases in the Supreme Court of India, pursuant to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Petitioners’ petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble Bench because they were filed as Res-Judicata.
Res-Judicata & Res-Sub Judice
Res-Judicata is a bar on the matter and trial that has already been adjudicated under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Res-Sub Judice is a bar on the fresh matter and trial because a previous matter on the same facts & parties with the same title is pending before the court of law.
Constructive Res-Judicata
Constructive Res-Judicata is another important provision of Section 11 of the C.P.C,1908. This section stipulates that when a party in a suit could have taken a plea against his opponent, he cannot take that plea in subsequent suits with the same subject matter because he did not take that plea in the previous suit
Res-Judicata in Writ Petitions
While Res-Judicata is not applicable in writ petitions, there is no legal basis to preclude decisions made in writ petitions under Art.-32 or Art.-226 of the Constitution Of India from being used as Res-Judicata in subsequent cases.
Res-Judicata Doctrine in Criminal Proceedings
as previously indicated, this doctrine has wider applicability. This regulation extended not only to civil, administrative, and other concerns but also to criminal matters. S.C decided in Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1972 SC 1502, that once a person is convicted or acquitted by a competent criminal legal proceeding, they cannot be prosecuted for the same offence since the doctrine of Res-Judicata prevents it.
Res-Judicata in Interim Orders
The Res-Judicata doctrine is implemented at various stages of a suit’s proceedings. In Ajay Mohan v. H.N. Rai, AIR 2008 SC 804, it was decided that if an interim order is made by the court during the pendency of the suit, it will act as Res-Judicata in all following suits. For instance, orders of maintainability of suits, questions about the jurisdiction of courts, and so on, if decided by the court once, would not be revived in the same litigation. The aggrieved party’s only option is to file an appeal in a higher court of law against the lower court’s interim order.
Conclusion
Res Judicata is a legal approach that can be applied to all aspects of the law. This doctrine is becoming a vital ingredient of the Indian judicial system. Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Act of 1908 states that a court may invoke Res Judicata if it believes the case has already been resolved through prior litigation. This concept applies not only to civil litigation but also to the legal system & other legislative action. The notion of final judgment, upon which the res judicata plea is focused, is a matter of public interest.
The Res Judicata doctrine prevents numerous judgments & ensures the protection of the other party by limiting the plaintiff’s capacity to restore liability multiple times from the respondent for the same damage.
